« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Q: Why was BP drilling in 5,000 ft of water?

Hint: BP wasn\'t drilling in 5,000 ft because it was cheap, fun or emotionally fulfilling.

The answer is, because we demanded it, you and I.

“It” being a reasonably inexpensive, plentiful and secure supply of petroleum products, gasoline in particular. We don’t like gas lines or $8.00 per gallon. We really don’t like gas lines and $8.00 per gallon.

(And “we” includes every American, with the possible exception of St. Ed Begley, Jr. )

We also decided that we didn’t want it to come from our own back yards. It shouldn’t mess up our postcard views from 30 story condo developments. We also decided we didn’t want it to interfere with the nesting season of the sage grouse or the mating habits of the pronghorn antelope.

We want gasoline to be as reliable as electricity, and we don’t want to give any thought to where it comes from.

In order to satisfy our demand, large multinational oil companies must find oil in large fields, capable of producing at high rates of flow. Most of the producing basins in the U.S. are so mature, so “picked over”, that the odds of finding a new, world class discovery comparable to those in the Middle East or Africa, are very, very low.

Operating in the developing world has its special risks. Many oilfields and much of the infrastructure that has been developed by Western companies has been expropriated by local regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela, and most recently, Ecuador.

The political risk is less in the U.S., where (at least historically) there has been respect for contracts, land title and the rule of law.

We’ve placed promising areas like the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the East Coast, offshore California, offshore Alaska and ANWR off limits. This current spill will provide ammunition for the anti development folks. But since our collective thirst for petroleum will be unabated, that will mean more oil and refined products will have to be imported in tankers, with their accompanying risk of spill.

BP looked for oil in the deepwater off Louisiana, partly because (paraphrasing Willie Sutton) that’s where the oil is, but also, domestically, it’s one of the few places where they had access.

The only place in the U.S. that is both welcoming to the petroleum industry and highly prospective for large discoveries is the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In the last few years, successful drilling has indicated the potential of billions of barrels of reserves. But drilling there has its risks, as we have all learned.

And there’s the frustration. Some will want use this spill in 5,000 feet of water as the reason to stop drilling anywhere domestically. Deepwater drilling is challenging for several reasons. Geomechanically, the wells are more challenging to drill than land wells, requiring more casing strings to be set for hole stability. On land or in shallow water, the blowout preventer is at the surface; in deepwater they are on the seafloor, much less accessible by men & equipment. Divers can dive to fix things in 50 feet of water, but not 5,000.

Shelf drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has been relatively spill-free for 40 years. Industry has learned how to drill on land from small, minimally impacting footprints. We should not react emotionally to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but learn from its lessons and figure out a more sensible domestic exploration policy that builds on existing conventional technologies.

Cross-posted to VladEnBlog.

COMMENTS

  • harlan

    that this wasn’t a “man-caused disaster”.

    It fits too conveniently into the environmentalist playbook.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      here.

      • muggedbyrealism

        Not linked, Vlad. Please do so, so that I can remain respectful of this conspiracy non-thinking.

        This is what Glenn Beck has given us: “I can imagine it, so it must be so.” Welcome to the logical rigor of the 9/11 truthers.

        • blooch

          Pot, meet kettle.

          Careful with that logical rigor poiny stick…it can be sharp on both ends.

          See my sig line below.

          • muggedbyrealism

            I’ll stand by that.

          • blooch

            Cool.

            ?I can imagine it, so it must be so.?

            lol

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
          • muggedbyrealism

            I vote for mind rays. I hear Friends of the Earth has been getting some serious Darpa grants.

          • muggedbyrealism

            I see an awful lot of turning environmental policy advocates into straw men on conservative sites. A lot of the same generalizing that tea party folks or, well, any human being would object to.

            Rush and harlan here’s calling “sabotage!” speaks to that. It speaks to a visceral unwillingness to admit that actually, people who voice worries about offshore drilling have a point. These rigs are risky–though, Vlad, I know, they are also real marvels of engineering and the safety culture on them is often impeccable–in the sense that if something goes wrong, it can go very wrong and you can severely damage, say, one of the most important fisheries in the country, if not the world.

            But just say, “oh, eco-dork Algore unicorn loving naive treehugging elitist carbon scamming limousine liberal,” and you can stop the conversation.

            To me, environmental policy is about maintaining human habitat–keeping the air clean enough, the water clean enough, fisheries viable enough, for Americans to live and thrive. It is always a balance with the economics of what is possible–balancing the need for cheap energy from coal with the price of scrubbing out sulfur dioxide, and the costs to human health and welfare of letting pollution go unabated, for example.

            And the trouble is, the market is not very good at pricing in risks and costs to human health and welfare, and companies often have little bottom-line incentive to do so–or, at least to be the first to do so. It is hard to price in these effects, and they can be fought in court forever, or called all the names above. We are often left dealing with the consequences afterwards. And some of those consequences are not reversible.

            Environmental policy is a challenge, but it is necessary. If we stopped calling each other names, and gave each other the benefit of the doubt that there is a lot of deliberate, moderate people thinking about this stuff, we’d be better off.

          • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

            There is no middle ground. There is no bargaining table. There can be no meeting of the minds, or sharing of ideas.

            One side equates the other with Holocaust deniers and says there is a scientific consensus in the process of trying to railroad an expensive global solution to a nonexistent problem.

            I make my living partly by being a responsible steward of the environment. I spend real money, my money, doing things the right way and cleaning up less responsible parties’ messes.

            Most greenies want to put me out of business. I consider my self pretty ‘green’, I just think all the global warming stuff is nonsense.

            So I don’t know exactly who is the audience for your last paragraph. I can talk to anybody that deals in good faith and treats me like I deal in good faith.

          • hickorystick

            I’ve read your comments, and I’ll state my point on them here. First, I just assume you are advocating a wider range of policy would be healthy for the Republican Party. Please confirm .
            Your stating quite a few things that are oft repeated but not true. I’ll point a few out. 1. You stress reduced consumption. What you don’t acknowledge is that we already have reached that. In the last 30 years, our population has doubled, but our energy use has only increased by 25%. 2. As relating to SO2, more of it in the atmosphere is a good thing if your concerned about rising global temperatures. Show me a large volcano eruption, I’ll show you a worldwide temp. decrease for two years, and some nice sunsets. 3. Using less carbon does not get people to feel better about you. My state, Washington, gets 97% of it’s electricity from hydropower and nuclear. We are morally superior to every other state. It doesn’t make us any happier. The Dem Governor is hyperventalting about one coal-fired plant. The feds refuse to recognize hydropower as renewable. The are guilt and control freaks, not reasonable human beings. Note: All this power was built with Republicans in power, by Republican initiative.
            4. Oil spills do not cause irreperable damage. Washington beaches were drenched in oil during WW2. Two of the beaches are annually voted the most beautiful in the nation. The sand is darkened, thats it.
            5. Democrat politics are the definition of irrational and fear-based. Rather than dealing with the terrorist threat, they meddle with global warming. They can’t compete, because when they go to their big political donors, saying we need to win so we can fight terrorism better, is not a big seller. They would rather deal with irrational fears. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still lived in last I checked. If the earth can rebuild a city after a nuclear bomb is dropped on it, it can repair an oil spill.
            6. I agree with you we should focus on maintaining clean water and air, the earth can do the rest. God did a great job building it,
            Now cheer up and go out there and support your Republican representatives and candidates.

    • karenlee

      I’m just wondering why Obama sent swat teams to the rig?

      Is it true that the oil from this drill in U.S. territorial waters was destined for Canada and Mexico?

      • Achance

        would be importing expensive US oil? Other than a little traffic in highly specialized products, no US produced oil is being exported and hasn’t been in years. And since you’re capable of believing that this oil was for export, let’s dispell the Greenie/Lefty myth that Alaska oil is exported; it isn’t. The only time it ever has been was a brief period in the ’90s when prices were quite low and there wasn’t enough refinery capacity on the US Left Coast to accept all of Alaska’s production and shipping it through Panama to the Gulf and East Coasts was not economic, so that which couldn’t be shipped to the Left Coast went to the Orient.

        • karenlee

          . I never said I believed it. I Had a punctuation mark at the end of my sentence. A ? mark means the person is asking a question. Whenever you see a ? mark that person is saying they don’t know the answer.
          An expert on Fox’s Bulls and Bears said the oil was intended for Canada and Mexico. I didn’t necessarily believe him that’s why I asked the question. I didn’t believe you either. I still don’t. Now it’s possible I misunderstood the so-called expert on Fox. However , I did some research and it’s all over the web that at least some crude was exported up till at least 2008 and maybe even to this day. I suppose all of those sites and opinions could be wrong but then you could be wrong too. and ….just because the govt. says they don’t export oil doesn’t mean they don’t, if they say that and it’s really them saying it.

          • Achance

            export oil. It doesn’t produce oil. It leases oil provinces on federal lands and others produce on those leases. And as I said in the above post other than some exchanges of specialty product NO US OIL is exported, we don’t have enough to export. And, yes, there are lots of sites and opinions that are wrong, many of them deliberately so because there is and endless supply of the mindnumbed out there to beleive them.

          • karenlee

            Gee, really! Since you are an inside expert, maybe you should correct the deliberately false CIA fact sheet. . Call them up and tell them their figures are wrong. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html
            Some congreesmen think that too. Here is an idiot right here http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0033
            who thinks so.(or like you said, he is deliberately misleading us)
            But hey, thanks for all the incorrect info. and thanks for letting us in on the U.S. leasing oil provinces on federal land. You know, come to think of it , they did keep calling it BP’s rig. I was wondering why we were supposedly so dependent on oil when we were pumping oil out like gangbusters. Big, Golly gee!
            I know what you mean about all the mind numbed(2 words,not 1) people out there. Heck there is one guy on here who keeps thinking I am going to believe he has the definitve answer on ANYTHING. You know they make rags in extra extra large sizes for extra extra large,wide heads.

          • Achance

            The US consumes 20+ MM bbl. dy. The exported percentages are just what I said they were; trading in specialized products. Now stay in your college classroom or whatever little lefty hangout you’re comfortable in. And you’re still stupid.

          • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

            …that’s where I draw the line!

            The US exports about 30,000 bbls per day of crude oil, IIRC.

            Your figures (and the idiot Congressman’s) are for oil and petroleum products. Clearly not the same thing.

            30,000 bbl is an incidental amount of oil compared to our 5 million b/d of production and 19.5 million of consumption. I don’t know why it happens or where, but it hardly matters. We are a big-time net importer.

            And most of the 19.5 million barrels gets refined here. There are overseas markets for our refined products that are 2/3 made of imported oil. So it’s not like we’re shipping “our oil” overseas.

            And I believe we are a net importer of refined product, too, especially gasoline. So we may be importing 87 octane gasoline while exporting 30-weight.

            Your Googled fact is correct as far as it goes, but it’s not insightful. We’ll forgive you, but Ed Markey should know better.

          • Achance
          • blooch

            I’d be interested to hear her thoughts on Peak Oil.

          • mbecker908

            They just “think” they know stuff about oil. I mean, I don’t know exactly what your CV looks like, but it’s obviously better than either of these guys. I mean it’s not like one of works in the industry or one was a government official in an oil producing state or something.

            We need more people like you giving us the straight dope. And I can’t imagine anybody more qualified to pass along dope than you.

          • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
  • barsrmerrill

    Our thirst for oil is why this has happened. It is just real bad timing this happened when it did. Regardless we still need to make this country not as dependent on foreign oil and the costs of wars that go along with it. The industry also supplies good paying jobs. My heart goes out to those and the families who lost thier loved ones. I would hope that is learnin’ lesson in progress will promote safer oil drilling practices or safe guards should a leak happen..

  • The_Gadfly

    I’d like enough distance so I can sleep at night, but I wouldn’t object to the change in the skyline. Unfortunately, most of my neighbors are of a rather different opinion.

  • jaybo

    I am shocked and surprised that there is no “automatic shutoff” at the oil head. I assumed that this was required but now find out that it isn’t.

    The amount of oil released into the Gulf and the lack of standby emergency equipment is very troubling to me.

    This accident is very bad news for anyone that believes that we need to expand drilling in this country. Again, how do politicians in Washington DC find time to name post offices and other public edifices in their names when we haven’t properly regulated offshore drilling?

    • Achance

      http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/04/29/offshore-safety-factoids/#comment-3686

      See especially Horizon3′s post.

      I’m sure there are pre-positioned skimmers, booms, etc. Federal legislation in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez requires it in most, maybe all, oil provinces. Here in Alaska it is pre-position all up and down the coast from Valdez to Puget Sound (Seattle-Tacoma).

      • jaybo

        I wonder why we pay these politicians anything!

        They waste our hard earned tax dollars investigating sports teams and pastors, then provide us public show trials like the recent spectacle with Barron’s but the actual important work is pushed to the side because it doesn’t stroke their egos.

        Term limits have never looked so good,,,,,,,

      • WoodstockRedCat

        A friend of mine on facebook posted pictures with booms already positioned around Penscacola.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      It’s called a blowout preventer, and it’s been pretty thoroughly discussed in the press.

      Standby vessels were activated early on. You will remember that for a couple of days it appeared that there was no leak.

      I’m sure that MSRC, the Marine Spill Response Corporation has all available assets deployed, as well as Clean Gulf Associates and other, independent spill cleanup organizations.

      FYI, Clean Gulf is a non-profit, industry consortium that nearly all producers belong to.

      • cactusjack

        Vlad or any other energy industry-savvy experts and bloggers – I have always thought pretty well of BP and their people, they are a company brought into life by Winston Churchill a century ago, that has survived many near-death experiences in the industry such as being completely nationalized out of Persia, but then roaring back in Alaska. That said: since March 2005 (TexasCity refinery) then the pipeline leaks on the Slope, now Deepwater Horizons, whether contractors or their own personnel, is it bad luck or is something going on in their operations philosophy change, where we have an apparent string of major incidents the last 5 years. It has affected their stock price..I think BP must be getting tired of the phones in London ringing from Washington DC… “it’s Washington calling again.”

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

          Some folks tell me they have safety meetings to prepare for safety meetings.

          My impression is that the career of the previous CEO, Lord Browne, was cut short by a succession of accidents, including Texas City.

          Remember, too, that the refining part of the business doesn’t much cross paths with E&P. Or so I suspect.

          • cactusjack

            No question Lord Browne’s departure was hastened. I am sure they had hopes of changing the scene with the energetic, youngish engineer Tony Hayward.

  • Hunter Baker

    I think you’ve put your finger on the key issue. We absolutely do need and want oil while we insist on forcing oil companies to get it in the hardest places. The chances of something like this happening in the Alaskan territory are surely much lower.

    • Achance

      platforms of the small-footprint sort developed for Prudhoe Bay. We’ve had a few pipeline spills but no big ones on land. The real problem with most of the pipeline leaks we’ve had is that the lines run through such remote areas and are often snow covered so the leaks don’t get discovered quickly enough.

      It was cutting edge development back in the ’70s because it was so remote and development in the Arctic was relatively untried, at least development where there were environmental concerns; the Soviets didn’t care about leaks and spills, probably still don’t. The only real incident in the whole history of the North Slope province was the Exxon Valdez and that was the result of the sort of human error that just happens no matter what precautions are taken. The mythology is that it happened because the Captain was drunk, but Hazelwood didn’t have the conn; he was asleep in his cabin when it happened. The Captain stands a watch usually, but he only has the conn when he’s the watchstander, usually for a six hours turn, then the Mates cover their turns. One of the Mates had the conn and he made a mistake. They didn’t have the sophistocated navigation systems we have today but even with dead reckoning, you shouldn’t hit a marked reef. That said, with all the modern aids that money can buy, one of our ferry masters and a mate, both on the bridge at the time, put one of our ferries on a marked rock in the middle of a beautiful, sunny day. Their explanation was that they “lost situational awareness.”

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    *Hope*fully that won’t be years from now but I’m not holding breath over it… to convenient a moment for the anti-US pOtus there to not exploit.

    The real fun will be in watching the BP representative getting dragged before a Senate committee howling for blood and telling the Senate committee that it’s essentially the government’s fault for forcing them to go there versus easier to access spots…

  • http://nationalchat.wordpress.com southeasttexas

    Unless the people of this country get their heads on straight and start allowing the development of alternative sources of fuel, they will continue to feed into the desire for more and more petroleum-based products. But each and every time something comes up that looks promising, the eco-bunch jumps up and stops it in its tracks. Why? Because it may not be esthetically pleasing.

    To steal a phrase from John Stossel, “Give me a break!”

    • muggedbyrealism

      All the enviros I work with, and that’s a lot of them, love wind and want to put it everywhere. Cape Wind is very unfortunate. But I think the wind industry needs to get out there and change people’s perceptions of the windmills. I was in Maui and saw windmills up the side of an extinct volcano. Gorgeous. Every wind farm is another coal plant we don’t have to build. Now, about those transmission lines…

      • Finrod

        It’s pretty simple: the wind isn’t always blowing. No wind means your wind farm just sits there, and if you don’t have another source, like that coal plant you didn’t think you had to build, then there’s no power.

      • Achance

        it just doubles the price, or worse, of the energy. You can’t use wind for base load because of its unreliability, so you have to have base load power from coal, gas, nuke, hydro, or diesel which can then be augmented or supplanted by the wind. Of course, the base load plant runs much more efficiently at a steady state so varying its load much reduces its efficiency. Now you have two bad things: a hideously expensive and unreliable wind plant and a reduced efficency base plant.

        • Finrod

          Amusingly we both answered the same guy twice within the same minute each time.

      • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

        Are you not bothered by wind’s reliance on Chinese rare earth metals?

        Or its unreliability?

        Or false economy? As my colleagues have pointed out, a wind farm can only be counted on for a tiny fraction of its rated load, and then it needs switchable (i.e., coal of nat gas) generation as a backup.

        Those things don’t trouble you?

        • muggedbyrealism

          But I will note that Iowa gets 20% of its energy from wind.

          Listen, every form of energy was heavily subsidized to start with.

          • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

            Iowa may get 20% of its electricity from wind.

            And I never said anything about subsidies, but since you brought it up…

            There is an obvious net energy gain with fossil fuels. Another recent diary of mine showed that a subsidy for unconventional gas paid off big over time, while the subsidy for ethanol is, was, and will always be a loser because the fuel itself is deficient.

            I am suspicious that once you factor in maintenance costs, wind electricity will always be at a disadvantage to gas and coal. And if you have to back up new wind capacity with gas and/or coal, why spend the money in the first place?

            It’s all about allocation of a scarce resource: capital. We’d better choose wisely.

  • muggedbyrealism

    Vlad, why isn’t part of the answer reducing our demand for and dependence on oil?

    • Achance
      • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

        You mean that fairy dust and unicorns are not the answer.

        Reducing demand is a fairytale. Until we run out of oil, which is a long time form now, demand will rise.,

        • muggedbyrealism

          …and what we use to meet the demand is also the question. You’re right that peak oil is largely a myth–it’s just that the oil gets more and more expensive to get out of the ground. As it gets more expensive, and more time goes by, we will use more (hopefully sugarcane) ethanol, biodiesel, coal-to-liquids (as long as we deal with water consumption and process emissions issues), and, if they can be brought to scale, cellulosic ethanol and algenol. Or something else someone is working on in a lab today.

          That’s why China is investing so heavily in electric vehicles. They know the oil consumption from all those folks buying cars is not feasible.

    • Finrod

      (/sarcasm)

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      Seriously, the American people, regardless of how green they are, have very comfortable lifestyles. No matter what kind of cocktail party profile they want to cop, they love to consume the stuff I produce.

      Take the leader of your movement as one example, Al Gore.

      Heated pool? Check. Private jet? Check. 20,000 s.f. house? Check.

      People will screw in a curly light bulb, and that’s about it. Any substantive change that involves a little pain, forget about it.

      Boulder, CO is evidence of this.

      Really. Read my diary. I’ve answered most of your questions already.

      • muggedbyrealism

        Until battery technology is advanced enough, or a smart grid is widely enough implemented, then for sure we will need baseload energy to supplement intermittent power. Luckily, we’ve got a hell of a lot of natural gas coming on-line from shale.

        As to rare earth, well, I suppose I’ll take needing to buy something from China then buying it from Iran, Venezeula, etc. etc. But we’ve got engineers and entrepeneurs working on reducing the need for those magnets, and if there is a strong enough need for it, we’ll innovate a solution.

      • muggedbyrealism

        And I’m not part of any movement.

        I’ve read and read your diary. There is stuff you are clearly expert on, and others you misrepresent and misinform on, and are overly polemical on, which is why I’m here. I think energy policy is too important to be partisan. Really.

        Jimmy Carter and the sweater was the wrong message. It’s not about going without, but spending less and using less energy to achieve the same result. Not a sweater, but insulation.

        We waste an obscene amount of energy in this country. FERC estimates we can reduce peak demand by 20%. Do that and energy prices go down, you need to build fewer power plants and transmission lines.

        And I think people should be able to consume as much as they want; build as big of a house as they want, all of that. But the externalities of that extra demand should get built in, and it should be priced accordingly.

        • realskinny

          “We waste an obscene amount of energy in this country.” The USA has doubled the amount of GDP produced per unit of energy in the last 30 years. Only two countries in the world are more energy efficient and they are both tiny European countries not continental giants. Of course we could reduce peak demand. Ban air conditioning.

          I have been a proponent of wind energy since the ’70s but large scale use putting power directly in the grid makes sense only in very limited areas. Transmission losses are 20% every 100 miles. The idea of producing power along the Colorado/Kansas line and using it in Chicago won’t fly.

          Electrical production should be nuclear, period. The US Navy should hold a design competition for a standard power plant. The US government should begin a program to build 400 such plants over the next 20 years. They would be leased under lease purchase contracts to private operators. A similar program was done during WWII to get large manufacturing plants up and running. There would be a lot of waste as in everything the government does but this would eliminate the waste involved with each design needing approval and block the lawsuit industry. Finally, both natural gas and coal would be plentiful and not be burned in power plants. Natural gas could supplant oil as a motor fuel and coal could supplement oil as a chemical feedstock, asphalt, Etc. Such a program could cut our demand for petroleum by 50% or more over the next 20 years while producing sufficient energy to allow us to at least maintain our standard of living.

      • jackie_b

        Well, you know where I’m going with that one. But just because we’re lazy, doesn’t mean we don’t change.

        Americans have made difficult choices and forced tremendous changes in society in the past. And for the most part, we did it because we either had the intrinsic will to do so (look at the birth of our nation or the WWII era). Or because our government compelled us to (we’re all aware of the long litany of social improvements we now take for granted and consider a right that we were adamantly opposed when first introduced.)

        Unfortunately, the whole “will to improve and shape our own future” seems to have all but disappeared. Somehow, we’ve become a nation of wimps and whiners instead, terrified of change (I include myself in this, when I have to be honest). We would much rather foment conspiracy theories, rant on blogs, call each other names, and blame politicians than look at the cold hard facts, enter into critical, but productive debates, and make those really tough decisions that just might improve our lives.

        So can you eliminate the extraction industries entirely because perhaps, just perhaps, the cost (in terms of damage to the planet and to people’s lives) is too high? Probably not. Can we do whatever we can to reduce our dependence on these industries and foster alternatives that might be better for everyone? Yeah…if we really wanted to.

        Question is, do you really want to? Or is that the kind of change you fear?

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

          In their zeal to pursue the mythical land of rainbows and unicorns and magic windmills, they are pulling out all the stops to demonize and punish “Big Oil”. Problem is, real Big Oil (Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron) will go upon their merry way, cooperating with the gov’t, while the real brunt of Hope’n'Change falls on independents.

          Independents who, BTW, drill 70% of the oil wells and 90% of the natural gas wells in America.

          Energy and environmental policy is being set by progressive (and Socialist) lawyers, career bureaucrats and 28 year-old progressive think tank policy wonks who think they know something about the business.

          They’re anti-capitalist.

          The country will suffer.

  • belcatar

    Looks like we’ll be paying more for gas real soon. They’re going to spend 100 million dollars to drill that relief well, and they’ll have to pass the cost, at least in part, on to us.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who understands that big corporations get big by satisfying the demands of their customers. That means the individual choices we make as consumers is a major contributing factor to the environmental disaster in the gulf.

    Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. People want oil. Unless we can figure out a way to make oil locally without drilling into the Earth’s crust, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      If Obama decides to put the squeeze on other producers to make a point, the entire industry will suffer & costs will go up.

  • cactusjack

    Belcatar you are probably right about gasoline prices being affected in this said incident, in which the loss of life is the premiere concern, of course, but it won’t be the blow out-spill per se at this one rig that affects world market prices, or, probably not that much. The world supply “pipeline” from reservoir to wellhead to refinery to market is still intact today, except at this location. Big (private)* oil lives in a world of risk in everything it does, and it’s all figured on 20 to 50 year projects, in a way no other private industry I know of, has to live. There are layers of insurance, re-insurance, deep pockets and supply contingencies that will swing into action. Watch the refineries in the Gulf area, if they keep humming along at capacity, things should stay stable. What will affect the market price, however, is sweeping or uniformed statements out of Washington about curtailing exploration/drilling in whole production zones such as Eastern Gulf. Or if for some reason the industry should announce “we really have no idea how to handle this with certitude of success” that would spook investment, although I don’t think that would happen. As to this Adminstration saying or doing something that makes matters worse – intentionally or otherwise – I am crossing my fingers but hold out no sure hope.

    *Most of the proved reserves in the world, are now in the hands of national oil companies such as Hugo Chavez’ PdVsa, China’s CNOOP, Russia’s Lukoil, etc., etc. There is only about 20% if that much left to the access by the western, private firms such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron or ConocoPhillips. It’s now getting harder and harder to find economic fields for political, as well as technological, reasons. Just one of the many things the libs don’t understand about this amazing industry.

  • proudconservativerepublican

    say we should keep drilling to find more but there needs to be a blowout valve on the top of the water as well so we don’t have disasters like we have now. We also need to drill in more places in the Gulf along with Alaska and elsewhere.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    There are many factors at play in this tragic event going back decades and involving many people and nations. I don’t see it however as my fault. I did not demand this particular structure or any like it, refinery use and capacity, etc. And if I had, no one would have cared. Other than that, it’s a very interesting topic about which I’ll be learning more.

  • Scope

    would it take to know there was an oil leak? I believe you said that there are automatic shut off valves, but they were not installed on this rig, or they didn’t work. How can the leak be stopped if 5,000 ft of water is not divable?

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      I assume the crew tried to operate the blowout preventers, but they did not work.

      The BOPs are supposed to have a kind of a deadman function so that they close immediately if they lose signal from the rig. That apparently did not work.

      And there is a manual control panel on the stack so that a Remotely Operated Vehicle can activate the BOPs using air pressure. That has failed on several attempts.

      Current plan is to install a pollution dome over the leak to capture the escaping oil & flow it to a tanker on the surface. That won’t be ready for some time, and won’t stop the leak.

      If the Navy has some whizbang ROV technology that surpasses industry’s capabilities, then that might work in closing BOPs.

      Failing all that, the plan is to directionally drill a relief well from a surface location 1/4 mile away. I believe drilling that well has commenced, but it will take several weeks. The plan would be to intersect the out-of-control well and “kill” it with heavy mud & cement. That’s the ultimate fix.

      • Scope

        Is the purpose of the alternate drill to take the pressure off the main leak so that the mud and cement will work with the original leak. and won’t be blasted off because of the pressure?

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

          They can’t reenter the existing well. They drill a new one so they can pump stuff down to plug off the flow.

    • leftybehind

      it was believed there was a shut off and it was functioning, but that was day one.

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    what do “we” do differently after this spill, if anything? It would seem to be a case which demands that something must change, considering the severity of this spill (much of which has yet to be realized)…

    Just wondering.

  • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

    What we should do:
    Investigate the incident
    Apply lessons learned to future deepwater wells
    Open ANWR & the 85% of the OCS so that we don’t have to drill so many wells in 5-10,000 ft of water

    What we will probably do:
    Investigate the incident, focusing on identifying scapegoats
    Use it as an excuse to clamp down on drilling in situations that are unrelated
    Consequently import more oil
    Use it as an excuse to waste a lot of money on green jobs
    Raise taxes on oil companies

  • kaiserbills

    There are several “problems” with this well disaster. One, it happened one day before the extreme environmentalist’s holy day of Earth Day, the blow-out protection on the well-head failed, and the Feds failed to react for some nine days and then all that was sent in to help was a few SWAT and a bunch of lawyers. The main objective of the extreme environmental wackos is to halt all off shore drilling. With the accident in the Gulf, the “Man child” Obama has accomplished this goal. Coincidence may be–however, as Joe Leaphorn of the Navajo Tribal Police Law and Order Division would point out–there is no such thing as coincidence.

  • leftybehind

    Give me four independant electric motors at each wheel with instant torque anyday over gas engines (on an affordable car.)

    Oh well, the future waits for no man.

    Why couldn’t they be building better lithium batteries so I don’t have to worry about things like emissions or mpg.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      How do you plan to charge them without emissions?

      • blooch
        • leftybehind

          Power the sun through solar panels.

      • leftybehind

        I’d go so far as to say, choose which ever one you want that doesn’t produce emissions and that would cover that. Or perhaps I can wish for fusion to hurry itself along and we can all run on the power of stars… until then dreams and snark will fuel everything just fine.

      • leftybehind

        when I say worrying about emissions, I mean theoretical bad emissions. Everything and everyone emits something.